5 May 2023
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal raised a question of great general or public importance or any real prospect of success, and the Notice of Motion was filed outside the statutory 28‑day period under section 24 without explanation; accordingly leave to appeal to the CFA was refused and the motion dismissed.
4 May 2023
Refused extension because the delay (over four months) was very substantial and inordinate, the applicant offered no good reason for the delay, the decision had been properly served, and the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds or prospect of success, making extension futile.
9 Mar 2023
Extension refused because applicant's delay was unjustified and his intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success: Board's findings that the applicant exaggerated facts, that state protection and internal relocation were viable, and the absence of BOR3 risk fatally undermined any BOR2 ground, so extension would permit a hopeless appeal.
11 May 2022
Refusal to extend time was justified because the applicant's delay of more than six weeks was inordinate, his explanation (detention and mail delays) was unsupported and insufficient, he failed to provide particularised or arguable grounds of appeal, did not attend the hearing, and there was no reasonable prospect of success, making extension futile.
11 Jan 2022
The court refused leave and refused extension of time because the applicant failed to adequately explain substantial delay and absence from hearings, and because the intended judicial review lacked merit on the facts and law as the TCAB and adjudicator reasonably found no real risk of harm and no procedural error.
24 May 2019
Extension of time was refused and leave to apply for judicial review dismissed because the applicant was significantly late (about three months) without providing any adequate explanation, the intended application lacked any real prospect of success, and the Board properly applied the statutory test under section 37ZT and lawfully found no special circumstances to justify late filing.
7 Dec 2018
Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the applicant offered an inadequate and uncredible explanation for substantial delay and for failure to attend the hearing (the Kam Tin address was an effective means of communication), and because the merits complaints were unparticularized and unmeritorious; delay alone justified dismissal.
29 Oct 2018
Refused leave to appeal because the applicant failed to provide a valid explanation for nearly three months' delay and put forward no arguable grounds with a realistic prospect of success; existing findings that the risk was localized or the applicant's evidence was not credible eliminated any basis for extension or appeal.
8 Mar 2000
The defendant's account was discredited and, having failed to provide a credible explanation for veering into the plaintiff's lane, the defendant was negligent and wholly liable for the collision; the plaintiff did not contribute to the accident and is entitled to damages assessed at $2,559,121 with costs and interest as specified, subject to statutory set-off for employer compensation.